US Pilot Labor Thread 10/19-10/26

[BoeingBoy]

As a bystander, it interests me that you are against anything that the East pilots want.

Not true at all, although with so much emphasis on the seniority integration in this forum I can see where you could get that impression.

I take it you are a solid ALPA man who flew for UAAir .....perhaps residing in their ALPA "upper echelons" before you retired?

Again not quite true. ALPA, just like the IAM, CWA, AFA, etc, has it faults and blemishes. My feeling about ALPA (and assumption about the others) is that at the end of the day, any union is only as effective as it's membership. When local elections are decided by a relative handful of members who take the time to vote, when the membership doesn't hold the leadership accountable, the old saying that you get the representation you deserve comes to mind.

You write with such authority and if someone disagrees with you, you seem to berate them in a very clever way.

I'll admit to expressing my opinions and defending them. As for berating, I try not to (spent enough time in cornfields on the farm as a youth) but am only human so slip up once in a while.

USAPA IS the legally elected entity that now represents ALL pilots on the property, no?

I have no problem with an indepent "in-house" union, and think it can definitely have advantages. I still think it's the membership that makes the union and not vice versa, as I said above. I also believe that any union elected on a platform of taking sides in such an emotion driven, divisive issue as this seniority integration starts life with 2 strikes against it. While I definitely haven't researched it, off the top of my head I know of no union that has been successful when started under such circumstances.

You say that USAPA represents ALL pilots, but it's extremely difficult to represent ALL pilots (much less be seen as representing ALL pilots) when choosing winners and losers in such a divisive issue as this.

Bitter - hardly. I just don't think a cookie cutter one size fits all approach is valid. I have always ("always" being since the first merger of my career) maintained that fair is when a pilot's position on the combined list allows him/her to do exactly what his/her position allowed on their separate list, if the combined list were implemented on the merger date. In other words, on the day of the merger if all pilots could bid any job they could hold given their position on the combined list, everyone would end up where they were the day before on their separate list (with some minor differences due to new bases being available to them, etc). What you wouldn't have is junior F/O's suddenly being senior to Captains, narrowbody pilots suddenly having the seniority to hold widebody jobs, etc.

I also strongly suspect that if the roles were reversed - US had been the younger, growing carrier and HP the older carrier fallen on hard times - you'd see many of those so adamant about what's "fair" change sides. Many DOH advocates would become ardent advocates for a relative position approach and vice versa.

'Splain to me Ricky, just what your definition of DOH is. <_< I am very interested to know.

Speaking of "berate ... in a very clever way. :blink:"

Personally, and I believe generally accepted, is that DOH is exactly what it says - date of hire. I.e., a DOH integration would use each pilot's DOH to determine their placement on the combined list (with slight adjustments to DOH in cases where the merging carriers used different criteria for DOH such as one using the first day of new hire training and the other using completion of training).

I think some probably use DOH as "slang" for LOS - length of service - where DOH would be adjusted to also take into account furlough time, leave of absence, etc and the adjusted DOH then used for placement on the combined list.

Jim

 

[oldiebutgoody]

...I also strongly suspect that if the roles were reversed - US had been the younger, growing carrier and HP the older carrier fallen on hard times - you'd see many of those so adamant about what's "fair" change sides. Many DOH advocates would become ardent advocates for a relative position approach and vice versa. ...


Jim

Only because it was ALPA's policy to take advantage when they could. Most of the current USAPA members from the East have been here through several mergers with DOH as the means to combine the lists. We survived them all. I DO remember how long it took for some exPiedmonters to get over not getting a windfall during their merger, when they got DOH instead of relative position. Gee, now I'm starting to see a connection....

 

[BoeingBoy]

I DO remember how long it took for some exPiedmonters to get over not getting a windfall during their merger, when they got DOH instead of relative position. Gee, now I'm starting to see a connection....

You'll have to forgive me - I have difficulty seeing how having the same seniority after merging lists as before is a "windfall"...

And I'm sure you "survived" all those DOH mergers very very well - nothing like moving up via merger to ease the "pain".

Jim

 

[boeingplt]

You'll have to forgive me - I have difficulty seeing how having the same seniority after merging lists as before is a "windfall"...


Jim

I had the same seniority at the time of the snapshot, yes, but at retirement I went from being #1 for two years to never seeing #450. Sorry, but I wont swallow that pill.

 

[fatherabraham]

You'll have to forgive me - I have difficulty seeing how having the same seniority after merging lists as before is a "windfall"...

And I'm sure you "survived" all those DOH mergers very very well - nothing like moving up via merger to ease the "pain".

Jim

Jim,

I appreciate your straitforward answers (i usually completly disagree on this topic), so I am asking you a personal question. I do not recall a reply to a like question , so forgive if I missed.

Just a fabricated random Question:

"IF your son daughter/son were hired in late 87 by AAA would you have fought to overturn the NIC?"

Yes or No will do, I am more than familiar with your prev post.

FA

 

[nic4us]

Nostodamus

You rebut my statements by providing a link to the east mec response to th NIC. Well I have read it before and it is full of lies. First premise in it is that ALPA merger policy was not followed, to this I say BS. Merger policy was followed to the letter of all five tenants. I cannot provide a link but pehaps you should read the NW and UA merger commitee responses to the NIC, or perhaps you should read the Nicolau decision itself.

Second, the graphic showing the migration of red dots only enhances my arguement. Cubfan at 60% on the east list would be one of the remaining but fewer blue dots that move up just as quickly as the red dots. All those blue dots below the red dots were furloughs and new hires, they are on the bottom at the beginning and move up just like anyone else, everyone shares attrition,everyone gets a portion of it, unless you consider that the greater attrition will happen in the domicle Cubfan is in , and in his own domicile Cubfan will move up faster that his west counterpart.

Finally after the NIC there was a computer program circulating showing positions based on DOH,NIC and stand alone. I assumed this is what generated the graphic. Had an east jumpseat show it to me. We put in my number and it spit out data that was totally wrong. So I question the finer details of this report altogether.

 

[Piedmont1984]

You'll have to forgive me - I have difficulty seeing how having the same seniority after merging lists as before is a "windfall"...

And I'm sure you "survived" all those DOH mergers very very well - nothing like moving up via merger to ease the "pain".

Jim

That is a little simplistic. Because if a F/O pre-merger had the "seniority" to be the next new east captain - and post Nic such expectations are gone - then someone, somewhere benefited at his expense. That sounds like a windfall to me.

When the metrics of any two merging pilot groups are nearly identical - age, time with company, equipment type, etc - then DOH and relative position are interchangeable methodologies. But when those metrics diverge, as in our case, the two methods are incompatible - and you seem to be arguing that relative seniority is the better way in all cases.

I disagree.

But whatever methodology a union utilizes, it should be unambiguous, simple and fair. ALPA's policy invited interpretation and arbitration - and this merger was the litmus test of that flawed policy.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

That is a little simplistic. Because if a F/O pre-merger had the "seniority" to be the next new east captain - and post Nic such expectations are gone - then someone, somewhere benefited at his expense. That sounds like a windfall to me.

When the metrics of any two merging pilot groups are nearly identical - age, time with company, equipment type, etc - then DOH and relative position are interchangeable methodologies. But when those metrics diverge, as in our case, the two methods are incompatible - and you seem to be arguing that relative seniority is the better way in all cases.

I disagree.

But whatever methodology a union utilizes, it should be unambiguous, simple and fair. ALPA's policy invited interpretation and arbitration - and this merger was the litmus test of that flawed policy.

Very well said.

The only point I add is that the ONLY truly comparable, quatifiable and fair methodology would be LOS, or a system based on DOH with C & R, exactly what USAPA has implemented. The true fairest method to me would be to give credit for service to the company, sort of like an investment of time.

Anything else is as stupid as arguing which company needed the other worse.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

You'll have to forgive me - I have difficulty seeing how having the same seniority after merging lists as before is a "windfall"...

And I'm sure you "survived" all those DOH mergers very very well - nothing like moving up via merger to ease the "pain".

Jim

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I NEVER moved up in any of them. In fact, I might have actually benefitted from another method. It just wouldn't have been fair.

 

[BoeingBoy]

That is a little simplistic. Because if a F/O pre-merger had the "seniority" to be the next new east captain - and post Nic such expectations are gone - then someone, somewhere benefited at his expense. That sounds like a windfall to me.

If that F/O had those expectations, they wouldn't be gone after Nic although there might be one or two new people in front of that pilot systemwide. Of course, "next to upgrade" only applies to the most senior F/O, who has Captains below him and who for personal reasons may choose to take that upgrade or not.

Now look at the other side and the "next to upgrade" F/O. When every open Captain position becomes a "system seniority" position, that F/O could indeed wait a long time before he/she was again "next to upgrade" since those Captain vacancies could be filled by East pilots who became senior to him/her merely because of how the lists were put together.

When the metrics of any two merging pilot groups are nearly identical - age, time with company, equipment type, etc - then DOH and relative position are interchangeable methodologies. But when those metrics diverge, as in our case, the two methods are incompatible - and you seem to be arguing that relative seniority is the better way in all cases.

In your first case - nearly identical metrics - DOH and relative position give basically the same result. As you say, though, as the metrics diverge the two results also diverge. The nice thing about relative position with limited fences for equipment differences, etc, is that it works in every case - equivalent to DOH if the metrics are nearly the same and not harming anyone if the metrics are different.

But whatever methodology a union utilizes, it should be unambiguous, simple and fair.

That's the problem as far as I'm concerned - unambiguous and simple like DOH/LOS is not necessarily fair.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

Just a fabricated random Question:

"IF your son daughter/son were hired in late 87 by AAA would you have fought to overturn the NIC?"

Honest - I wasn't ignoring your question. Just got to Piedmont1984's post and answered that first.

No I wouldn't because I think it's basically fair. In one of the earlier "Pilot Issues" threads I've gone through the parts of the Nic that I would have handled differently if I were the arbitrator, but none of those differences are deal breakers.

Don't be like EastUS and think that disagreement with your position signifies a lack of principles. As I've said, my views of what's fair haven't changed since the first merger I went through, and I've seen everything from staple to DOH.

Jim

 

[nic4us]

That is a little simplistic. Because if a F/O pre-merger had the "seniority" to be the next new east captain - and post Nic such expectations are gone - then someone, somewhere benefited at his expense. That sounds like a windfall to me.

When the metrics of any two merging pilot groups are nearly identical - age, time with company, equipment type, etc - then DOH and relative position are interchangeable methodologies. But when those metrics diverge, as in our case, the two methods are incompatible - and you seem to be arguing that relative seniority is the better way in all cases.

I disagree.

But whatever methodology a union utilizes, it should be unambiguous, simple and fair. ALPA's policy invited interpretation and arbitration - and this merger was the litmus test of that flawed policy.

1984

I follow all of your arguement, however if an east F/O had the seniority to be the next east captain pre-merger, they still have the seniority to be the next captain not only east but company wide with the NIC in place. So the windfall you refer to is nonexistant and could not happen. However, with DOH a west pilot with the seniority and a class date to be the next West captain gets to go to the bottom of the list, hope that somehow the C&Rs hold up against their many flaws, hopes the company decides to upgrade west,has no shot at a newly created domicile, and gets to watch while furloughs take jobs created by the merger.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Sorry to burst your bubble

Oh - you can give your little slams ("I'm starting to see a connection", etc) but can't take them?

but I NEVER moved up in any of them. In fact, I might have actually benefitted from another method. It just wouldn't have been fair.

If that sentiment is indeed true, then you're one of the minority that truly believes in DOH. I can respect that although I don't agree with it.

Jim

 

[Piedmont1984]

If that F/O had those expectations, they wouldn't be gone after Nic although there might be one or two new people in front of that pilot systemwide. Of course, "next to upgrade" only applies to the most senior F/O, who has Captains below him and who for personal reasons may choose to take that upgrade or not.

Now look at the other side and the "next to upgrade" F/O. When every open Captain position becomes a "system seniority" position, that F/O could indeed wait a long time before he/she was again "next to upgrade" since those Captain vacancies could be filled by East pilots who became senior to him/her merely because of how the lists were put together.



In your first case - nearly identical metrics - DOH and relative position give basically the same result. As you say, though, as the metrics diverge the two results also diverge. The nice thing about relative position with limited fences for equipment differences, etc, is that it works in every case - equivalent to DOH if the metrics are nearly the same and not harming anyone if the metrics are different.



That's the problem as far as I'm concerned - unambiguous and simple like DOH/LOS is not necessarily fair.

Jim

Let me put it another way. Two F/O's, "both alike in dignity" as the bard said, one east and one west. Both are senior on their respective lists and next to upgrade to captain. Similar age, equipment, aviation experience and so forth. But - the eastie was hired here in the mid 80's and the westy was hired in this decade.

In this hypothetical lets assume only one captain slot is available this bid. Who should go first? Their relative seniority is identical, the only distinction is their DOH - and so I am saying the eastie gets the upgrade. If their DOH is the same, he with the earlier DOB goes first - just as both sides now operate in-house.

Now what happens on the next bid? Again, two F/O's, one from each camp, and only one captain slot available. What is fair in microcosm should be fair when extrapolated to the entire pilot group.

 

[BoeingBoy]

The difference is that in your first example, the Eastie would then be next to upgrade and get it, then the Westie would get the next, Eastie next, Westie next, etc (using a 1 for 1 ratio which is different than Nic). Carried from the microcosm to the macrocosm, however, you get Eastie, Eastie, Eastie, Eastie, etc getting the next upgrade while that Westie (who was next in line on his/her side) waits - possibly for years.

Jim